United States v. HARRIS, 1:24-cr-00541

Dajahn McBean was indicted for allegedly orchestrating a murder-for-hire plot from inside the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) while awaiting sentencing on a prior guilty plea for racketeering-related assault.
The plot allegedly resulted in a shooting that wounded the intended target (Laquan Williams) and killed an accompanying woman.
After receiving an anonymous tip and gathering supporting evidence, the NYPD requested that MDC officials search McBean's cell for a contraband cellphone believed used to coordinate the crime.
MDC officials searched the cell without a warrant, finding and seizing a damaged cellphone.
McBean moved to suppress the phone and its contents, alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches; the government opposed, arguing prisoners lack privacy rights in their cells under established precedent.
An evidentiary hearing was held, and the facts of the search—including institutional security concerns and prison regulations prohibiting cellphones—were established.

Issue	McBean's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment violation by warrantless prison cell search	The search of McBean’s cell was a warrantless search that violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches	Prisoners have no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells; under Hudson v. Palmer, no Fourth Amendment violation	No Fourth Amendment violation; Hudson controls
Applicability of Cohen exception for pretrial detainees	McBean was akin to a pretrial detainee and should retain limited Fourth Amendment rights under United States v. Cohen	McBean had already pled guilty and was not a pretrial detainee; even if Cohen applies, the search served a bona fide institutional security interest	Cohen does not apply; McBean was a convicted prisoner, and the search was justified by security concerns
Whether search was for security or solely investigatory	Search was instigated by law enforcement for investigation, not for prison security	Search addressed institutional need to prevent dangerous contraband (cellphone) in prison	Security motivation justified search under Hudson; investigatory intent irrelevant
Relevance of officers’ subjective motivation	Subjective intent behind the search should affect its legality	Fourth Amendment analysis is objective; subjective motivations are irrelevant if objective justification exists	Objective justification controls; search lawful regardless of officers' motives

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (holding prisoners lack a legitimate expectation of privacy in their prison cells, and the Fourth Amendment does not apply to cell searches)
United States v. Cohen, 796 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1986) (recognizing a narrow exception to Hudson for pretrial detainees where cell search is for investigation only and not linked to prison security)
Willis v. Artuz, 301 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2002) (limiting Cohen: convicted inmates do not retain Fourth Amendment privacy interests in their cells)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (prisoners’ constitutional rights are limited by institutional needs and objectives)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness determined by objective facts, not officer’s subjective intent)